an industrial Pentecost; and their own personal efficiency, which was the slowly-matured product of centuries, was, by a power acting outside themselves, increased a hundredfold in the course of a few years. [Sidenote ◆1 There is, however, a plausible objection to this view which we must consider.] ◆¹ Illustrations of this kind might be multiplied without limit; but nothing could add to the force of the one just given, or show more clearly how the productivity of Labour is fixed, and the power of Ability, and of Ability alone, is progressive. There is, however, a very important argument which objectors may use here with so much apparent force that, although it is entirely fallacious, it requires to be considered carefully. CHAPTER II _That the Ability which at any given period is a Producing Agent, is a Faculty residing in and belonging to living Men._ It may amuse the reader to hear this argument stated—forcibly, if not very fully—by an American Socialist, in an anonymous letter to myself. I had published an article in _The North American Review_, giving a short summary of what I have said in the preceding chapters with regard to the part played by Ability in production; and the letter which I will now give was sent me as a criticism on this: [Sidenote ◆1 The objection is thus put by an American Socialist: that it is absurd to say that primæval inventors, such as the inventor of the plough, are still producing wealth by their ability; and if absurd in this case, then in all cases.] ◆¹ Sir—Your article in the current number of _The North American Review_ on “Who are the Chief Wealth Producers?” in my judgment is the crowning absurdity of the various effusions that parade under the self-assumed title of political economy. In the vulgar parlance of some newspapers, it is hog-wash. It is utterly senseless, and wholly absurd and worthless. You propose to publish a book in which you will elaborate your theory. Well, if the book has a large sale, it will not be because the author has any ability as a writer on economical subjects, but rather that the buyers are either dupes or fools. All the increase in wealth that has resulted by reason of men using ploughs was produced by the man who invented the plough—eh? The total amount of the wealth produced by men by reason of their using certain appliances in the form of tools or machines is produced by the man who invented the tool or machine—eh? perhaps some one in Egypt thousands of years ago? Such stuff is not only worthless hog-wash: it is nauseating, is worthy of the inmate of Bedlam. [Sidenote ◆1 To this there are two answers. The first is that the simpler inventions are probably due, not to Ability at all, but to the common experience of the average man;]